Alea: You wrote: "looks like finally it is a truth universally acknowledged that the os vendors and mobile carriers have always been an obstruction to wave's progress."
You may have misdiagnosed the source of the problem in your analysis and search for the universal truth. IMO, the problem is Wave's products are so unimpressive, Wave can not sell them.
Those who signed big with Wave like GM, did not re-sign with Wave. That indicates some sort of dissatisfaction with either the product or the mgt.
Despite all the optimism surrounding Solms's declaration of turnaround, break-even, dozens of pilots inciting interest and many large enterprises ready to sign with Wave--all according to Bill Solms and there was not a nanogram of truth in any of it.
After re-jiggering the VSC 2.0, Wave's crown jewel, according to the new CEO, sales have been almost non-existent. There was a solo moderate sale, but it was for Wave's older tech, not the VSC 2.0.
So, in summary, I think it was not the OS vendors or the mobile carriers who kept Wave from success. I think it was Wave itself, by putting out a product either faulty, or else, one no one or few wanted .
Wave and its supporters were claiming Wave had the best and only manageable solution to security, were first to market and they were trying to sell Wave in the midst of wholesale hacks, destroying companies and reputations week after week.
Yet, somehow the 'best' product was never bought by the market at large. Wave's "solution" seemed inevitable, at least to the supporters, but big enterprises continuously avoided Wave. Part of the avoidance may be a result of the previous CEO's air of arrogance and entitlement in negotiations and meetings.
But, ultimately, IMO, if you want to buy a lock and the seller is truly obnoxious, but his lock is really good, you grit your teeth and put up with the seller long enough to secure your purchase.
Bad vibes, bad karma, bad decisions by mgt were all excused away by supporters and their leaders as not important to the greater mission.
IMO, Wave mgt only once had to face shareholder rebellion and that was over the Employee Options(I) proposal the company put out, saving employees from the ravages of the first reverse split affecting everyone else. Shareholders revolted and mgt watered down the onerous parts until it passed.
But the main foundation of Wave should have been the sales of product, not company shares as was the actual case.
I think if the product had been first rate, it would have sold no matter how irritating SKS was to deal with, or how close the company was to being out of business.
The company itself has not been forthcoming about reasons for lack of sales--normal sales cycles take this long, etc., etc.
And the supporters jumped into the breach of no significant sales for significant amounts of time with made up excuses and rationalizations for the constant lack of sales. Incredibly, the torrent of excuses seemed to work, keeping the supporters holding shares instead of selling.
They held because they believed in Wave, and the need for online/offline/cloud computing security--an excellent goal.
My theory is the products were as PC Mag described them many years ago: "Wave--sub-par suite at best." And sub-par products are IMO, why Wave has never sold enough goods to support itself or even hit break-even for one quarter.
If one has a sub-standard product in a competitive market, IMO, I don't think it fair to blame OS vendors or mobile carriers for the lack of traction. IMO, the issues start much closer to the source.
Best--Blue
